JAGDISH DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner by referring order dated 29.3.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) 1833 of 2002 pointed out that this order has not been complied with in its true spirit though there was an specific direction to the Opp. Parties to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits. It is also pointed out that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the Opp. Parties have preferred Letters Patent Appeal on various grounds, and the said LPA has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 24.1.2013. However, till date the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the petitioner has been reinstated in service but till date no salary has been paid to him.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the Opp. Parties by referring office order dated 14.2.2003 (Annexure -A to the supplementary show cause) pointed out that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Opp. Party, the order passed by this Court has been complied with and the present contempt proceeding is required to be dropped. The learned counsel for the Opp. Party further submitted that the order dated 29.3.2012 was passed by this Court after considering the fact that the Patna High Court passed several orders dismissing the LPAs preferred by the State, thereby, the order passed by the Single Judge has been confirmed but in those matters, the employees were recruited on regular basis and therefore, there was no question of regularization of their services in those cases. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner cannot be compared or treated similar to that of the cases of the employees, who were in the writ petitions as well as L.P.As. It is further submitted that the petitioner services cannot be regularized in view of order dated 29.3.2012 and therefore, the Opp. Parties rightly and properly reinstated the petitioner to the original position in service. The petitioner can not be allowed to claim regularization.

(3.) IT appears that by order dated 29.3.2012, after considering the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also after considering the previous decisions given by the Patna High Court in similar set of facts, the Opp. Parties were specifically directed by this Court to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits.